The most recent mass shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana, last Thursday, has re-focused the nation’s attention on the debate over solutions to preventing future instances of gun violence. In 2013, the White House released a report that suggested background checks were the first line of defense in preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.
But, in the cases of Lafayette and the June 17 shooting at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, background checks failed to prevent both gunmen from legally obtaining a weapon. John Houser, the Lafayette theater gunman, was able to purchase a handgun in Alabama despite having been previously admitted to a mental hospital in Georgia.

We should learn from both shootings that background checks are not effective at keeping guns out of the hands of bad people. But it’s not just background checks that don’t work its gun control as a whole.
Let’s take a look at the United Kingdom which has strict gun control laws. The Library of Congress gives an overview of UK gun laws:

Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

Even with strict gun control in the UK, there were 7,714 firearm offenses according to 2014 ONS statistics.
Violent crime recently rose by 16 percent The Telegraph reports:

Violent crime recorded by the police soared by 16 per cent last year to nearly 700,000 offences, new figures show.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) covering the 12 months to the end of September last year showed 699,800 recorded incidents of violence against the person compared with 604,100 offences in the previous 12 months.
The data also showed a new record level of rapes recorded by police in England and Wales.
There were 24,043 rapes in recorded crime figures for the year, a rise of 31 percent on the previous 12 months and 81 percent higher than a decade earlier.

The figures show there were 1,577 more knife assaults (up 13% from the previous year) and 1,000 more cases of knife possession (up 10%).
Overall, knife crime rose by 2% in the 12 months up to March this year, said the Office for National Statistics.

These statistics show that gun regulation will not necessarily stop violence. Instead, violence used with a different weapon such as knives replaces illegal gun use. Should we have background checks to purchase kitchen knives?
USA Today reports that Baltimore and Chicago are the Top 2 US cities in homicide rate so far in 2015, both cities have strict gun control laws.
These trends show that gun control laws do not necessarily make us safer. If anything, they make us less safe. The shootings in Louisiana and South Carolina both occurred in gun-free zones where law abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves.
Gun safety is not achieved by government, but by the individual. The 2nd Amendment exists so gun safety is in the hands of the people to protect themselves. Violent criminals will always exist, no matter how many government regulations there are. Gun control hinders law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from the violent criminals.]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/watch-norm-singleton-whistleblower-panel
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/watch-norm-singleton-whistleblower-panel#commentsThu, 30 Jul 2015 09:37:48 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/watch-norm-singleton-whistleblower-panel]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/true-progressives-oppose-corporate-welefare
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/true-progressives-oppose-corporate-welefare#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 11:09:22 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/true-progressives-oppose-corporate-welefareCandidate Obama once called the Export-Import bank (Eximbank) "...a fund for corporate welfare," whereas President Obama supports Eximbank.
Most of the Democrats have followed President Obama's lead. Hence, the only "progressive" Senator to oppose reauthorization of Eximbank was Bernie Sanders, who is an independent, not a Democrat.
Another progressive who has not abandoned his opposition to corporate welfare just because there is a Democrat in the White House is former Congressman (and Ron Paul Institute Board member) Dennis Kucinich. Representative Kucinich recently teamed up with conservative Representative (and his fellow Ohioan) Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, for an anti-Eximbank op-ed for USA Today:

"I'm not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program, just because it's there. Like … the Export-Import Bank that's become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." These are the words of Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.
As a liberal former congressman and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and a Republican congressman who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, we agree with then-candidate Obama that the Ex-Im Bank is little more than a fund for corporate welfare. And we are united in the belief that taxpayers should not be forced to support welfare for some of the world's largest companies.
While it began as a New Deal-era program with good intentions, the Ex-Im Bank has become a slush fund for a handful of well-connected megacorporations. Efforts to reform the bank, including one by Kucinich in 2002, have ended in disappointment.
The bank has also failed to comply with reforms that are on the books. Additionally, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigations have uncovered that the bank is rampant with potential fraud and abuse. The bank's inspector general is investigating 31 cases, with one indictment and more possible.
Today, Ex-Im funds support only 2% of U.S. exports. The vast majority of exporters find their funding elsewhere.

Read the rest here.
Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul discusses his work across party and ideological lines against the warfare state in his new book Swords into Plowshares. If you have not yet bought a copy get one today!
]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/congress-keeps-giving-new-powers-irs
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/congress-keeps-giving-new-powers-irs#commentsTue, 28 Jul 2015 18:17:29 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/congress-keeps-giving-new-powers-irsreauthorize the Export-Import Bank (yea!) nor does it give the IRS authority to revoke America's passports (yea!).
However, like the Senate bill,the new House bill does contains a provision requiring taxpayers claiming the mortgage interest deduction to provide the IRS with "the origination date of the mortgage, the amount of outstanding principal at the end of a calendar year, and the property’s address."
Making taxpayers provide the IRS this information is supposed to make it easier for the IRS to identify those improperly claiming the mortgage interest deduction. Some might say that it is proper to give the IRS the information necessary to enforce the law.
However, supporters of limited goverment and individual liberty should have concerns with this proposal. First, Congress should be cutting spending instead of giving the IRS new powers to squeeze even more revenue from the American people. Secondly, and most importantly, given the IRS's' s history of using its power to abuse our liberties, is it really a good idea to allow this agency to have any more of our personal information?
(hat/tip: The Institute for Policy Innovation).
]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/pro-wrestling-us-senate
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/pro-wrestling-us-senate#commentsMon, 27 Jul 2015 20:39:33 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/pro-wrestling-us-senateexplanation of the situation surrounding the highway bill.
]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/need-bring-back-internment-camps
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/need-bring-back-internment-camps#commentsMon, 27 Jul 2015 10:32:38 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/need-bring-back-internment-camps ]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/questions-raised-traffic-stop-death-sandra-bland
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/questions-raised-traffic-stop-death-sandra-bland#commentsFri, 24 Jul 2015 15:59:15 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/questions-raised-traffic-stop-death-sandra-blandBy Danny Lewis
People are asking questions about the death of Sandra Bland, the woman who was found dead in a Texas jail on July 13th, especially whether she should have been arrested in the first place.
CNN reports the original dashcam video appears questionable:

Anger over Sandra Bland's death in a Texas jail has boiled over after newly released video showed what happened at the traffic stop that led to her arrest:
Now, many question whether she should have been arrested at all.
The dashcam video shows Texas state Trooper Brian Encinia pulling Bland over July 10 for allegedly failing to use her turn signal. What started as normal conversation gets testy after Encinia asks her to put out her cigarette.
"I am in my car. I don't have to put out my cigarette," Bland says.
"You can step on out now," Encinia replies.
Bland refuses to get out of her car, and the trooper opens her door and starts trying to pull her out of the vehicle.
What happens after that has ignited a debate about what the officer could have done versus what he should have done.

The next part of the article raises questions as to whether or not violence was used against Bland:

Much of what happens next is not seen on camera, but the officer can be heard saying Bland is not compliant.
"When you pull away from me, you're resisting arrest," Encinia says.
A clearly upset Bland can be heard saying: "You're a real man now. You just slammed me, knocked my head in the ground. I got epilepsy you mother******."
"Good," he replies.
A female officer tells Bland she should have thought about that before she started resisting.

The original story that the police department gave does not add up. The video suggests that the police officer acted unprofessionally and used violence against Sandra Bland.
The following is the full video of the arrest from the Texas Department of Public Safety please be advised this footage contains STRONG LANGUAGE and VIOLENCE:
Sandra Bland Traffic Stop
Questions are also being raised about the way the jail handled Sandra Bland.
An article from Dallas Morning News cites the jail’s failure to meet state standards:

The Texas Commission on Jail Standards has found the Waller County Jail — the 110-bed lockup where 28-year-old Sandra Bland was found hanging from a plastic bag July 13 — out of compliance with state jail regulations at least five times since 2009, a figure that doesn’t include the 2008 escape, which was the subject of news reports.

Although the state autopsy ruled Sandra Bland’s death a suicide, her family is still raising questions about the legitimacy of the investigation. There are questions raised as to why the jail still has not released video from before she was allegedly found dead.
While we may know what really happened, it is important that a full investigation is conducted to ensure something like this never happens again.]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/senate-driving-away-liberty
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/senate-driving-away-liberty#commentsThu, 23 Jul 2015 14:38:47 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/senate-driving-away-liberty increases spending on highway funding, as well as on safety research, public transportation, new auto safety regulations, and other programs.
Sponsors of the bill claim that they are being "fiscally responsible" by offsetting this spending.However, only one of their proposed offsets-- a prohibition on people with felony arrest warrants from receiving social security benefits--actually cuts spending. The rest of the offsets "raises revenues" by changing the rules governing tax collection to make it easier for the IRS to steal our money enforce the tax laws.
One provision of particular interest gives the IRS authority to revoke someone's passport if they have more than $50,000 of unpaid taxes. As Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul has pointed out, one characteristic of authoritarian government is restrictions on the right to travel abroad, as well as the right to move our cash and other assets overseas. It is also a bad sign for both liberty and prosperity when Congress gives new powers to the tax police to squeeze as much revenue as possible from the people.
Those tempted to dismiss the threat posed by this provision because it only applies to those already facing IRS enforcement actions should ask themselves how likely it is that Congress will build on this new power to extend the universe of Americans who must seek "permission" from the IRS before traveling abroad.
In any case, Congress should be working to cut spending, and returning responsibility for transportation to the states and the private sector, not giving the IRS new powers.
Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has some additional thoughts on the passport provisions.
Campaign for Liberty members who think Congress should cut spending instead of giving the IRS new powers should call their Senators and tell them to oppose the DRIVE Act.]]>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/rep-alex-mooney-speaks-audit-fed
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/rep-alex-mooney-speaks-audit-fed#commentsWed, 22 Jul 2015 15:29:32 -0400http://www.campaignforliberty.org/rep-alex-mooney-speaks-audit-fed]]>